Let’s Talk Tariffs with Jamie Rodgers: CAPE Phase 3 Delivers, CBP Proposes New Postal Rules & Bond Requirements

Your weekly coffee chat on tariffs & trade.

Well, we finally have some good news on CAPE.

After months of waiting, Phase 3 officially launched on October 6, and CBP reported accepting 477 declarations for processing by noon on the first day.

That’s encouraging to see.

We’ve spent a lot of time discussing IEEPA refunds over the past several months, and understandably so. There are significant amounts of money involved, and importers have been waiting for a clearer path to recover duties they may be entitled to receive.

It’s nice to see some actual movement after so much discussion about timelines and court proceedings.

Of course, there’s still work to be done. The current process remains limited to qualifying importers involved in litigation before the Court of International Trade, and questions remain about whether that access will eventually expand.

But for the businesses that can participate, this is an important development.

And while CAPE is finally making progress, CBP has given us something else to think about this week.

What Caught My Eye

CBP’s proposed changes to low-value international mail shipments caught my attention.

For years, many businesses became accustomed to relatively straightforward processing for lower-value shipments. With the elimination of de minimis treatment earlier this year, that environment has already changed considerably.

Now CBP is proposing additional changes that could make the process more demanding.

Under the October 8 proposal, international mail shipments valued at $2,500 or less would generally need an entry filed before CBP releases them. The proposal would also move the Entry Type 11 filing deadline to no later than the date of importation.

And then there’s the proposed 15-day window.

Mail shipments that aren’t properly entered within that period could be considered voluntarily abandoned.

I think that provision deserves particular attention.

A shipment worth a few hundred dollars may not seem especially significant on its own. But if you’re a business handling thousands of those shipments, the operational implications add up quickly.

You’re dealing with more entry data, tighter timelines and potentially a much greater need for coordination between the shipper, carrier, customs broker and importer.

That requires a different level of organization than many businesses have historically needed for international mail.

Here’s My Take

What interests me most about this proposal is the direction customs administration is heading.

We’ve been in this business for more than 75 years at J.M. Rodgers, and one thing I’ve watched throughout my career is how the expectations placed on importers continue to evolve.

There’s more information to collect, more documentation to maintain and more responsibility attached to getting things right.

The proposed bond requirements are a good example.

CBP wants every Entry Type 11 and Entry Type 13 filer to have either a single transaction bond or a continuous bond covering import duties.

The proposal also establishes minimum liquidated damages for certain bond violations, starting at the greater of $1,000 or the merchandise value, with higher amounts for certain restricted goods and alcoholic beverages.

That’s a meaningful change for companies that have built their operations around high volumes of relatively low-value shipments.

A $1,000 potential bond claim looks very different when the merchandise itself is only worth $100.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some businesses discover that their existing processes need a fairly substantial overhaul.

And I don’t mean that as criticism. Many of these businesses developed their shipping models under an entirely different set of rules.

But those rules are changing, and the operations supporting them have to change too.

If It Were My Business…

I’d start by looking at how much of our import activity depends on the current informal entry process.

How many shipments are we receiving? What’s their average value? Who is responsible for filing the entries? Do we have the necessary information available before the shipments arrive?

I’d also want to understand our bond coverage and whether our current arrangements would support the proposed requirements.

These are conversations I’d be having now, even though the rule isn’t final.

CBP is accepting public comments through December 7, and I think businesses that would be significantly affected should seriously consider participating.

It’s an opportunity to explain how the proposed requirements could affect actual shipping operations.

Regulators can establish the requirements. The trade community is in a position to explain what implementing them will look like.

That input matters.

I also wouldn’t overlook the proposed abandonment provisions. If you’re handling substantial shipment volumes, you need to know what happens when an entry can’t be completed on time.

Missing documentation, incorrect data or a system issue can quickly become a much bigger problem+ when there’s a deadline attached to the merchandise.

And those are exactly the kinds of problems I’d rather work through before a new rule takes effect.

One for the Road

I want to come back to CAPE for a moment.

The initial launch numbers are promising, but I’m interested in what happens over the next several weeks.

How efficiently are declarations moving through the process? Are importers encountering issues with historical entry data? And what happens next for businesses that remain outside the current eligibility requirements?

Those are the questions I’ll be following.

We’re also keeping an eye on the December 4 implementation of new Section 232 measures affecting certain polysilicon products, particularly the minimum import price requirements.

There’s no shortage of things to watch as we move further into October.

But I think this week offers a useful reminder about the importance of getting the fundamentals right.

Whether you’re preparing historical entries for a duty refund or managing thousands of incoming postal shipments, the quality of your records and processes makes a difference.

We’ve seen customs technology change tremendously over the years. The amount of data moving through these systems today would have been hard to imagine when J.M. Rodgers opened its doors in 1951.

Yet I still find myself coming back to some of the same advice.

Understand your requirements. Keep accurate records. Make sure the people handling your shipments know what they’re doing.

It’s not particularly glamorous advice, but it’s served this industry pretty well.

See you next week.

Jamie Rodgers
CEO, J.M. Rodgers Co.